Written speech - a good researcher is not necessarily a good lecturer
Written and presented by Dr. David Feitelson in the framework The art of speech and rhetoric course. Moderator: Guy Yariv
The popular opinion these days is that teaching and research are activities that support and enrich each other and therefore a good lecturer must also be a researcher. The supporters of this opinion claim that lecturers who are also researchers are more aware of the latest developments and are more effective in imparting a critical approach to understanding research. In addition, the students appreciate more the authenticity of learning from a researcher who contributed to the development of the field. But this is not the whole picture. There are additional and no less powerful factors that neutralize the advantages we have listed in this way In a more comprehensive examination it becomes clear that a good lecturer does not have to be a researcher. First, teaching and research are different skills that require different abilities from those who engage in them. The researcher seeks new knowledge while the lecturer presents existing knowledge. A person can be a good lecturer simply because he knows how to lecture. Second, research and teaching compete for the same resource - time. Inevitably investment in research will come at the expense of the time devoted to teaching. Finally, studies that examined the relationship between the level of teaching and the level of research of academics found that such a relationship does not exist. Let's expand a little on each point.
First argument: there is no overlap in Kish
and required
SeeThatAfter all, teaching and research are different professions and require different skills. It is true that both a good researcher and a good lecturer must master the existing knowledge base, but that is where the similarity between them ends. To be a good researcher you must be prepared to spend many years alone in the laboratory and in the library, repeat again and again long experiments which often fail and be prepared for years of work to eventually turn out to be a dead end. Finally when you present your research results you do so to a small group of peers who already know you and most of the details of your research. The main challenge in research is finding the knowledge and not presenting the knowledge. On the other hand, to be a good lecturer you must be able to explain a wide area of knowledge in a gradual, interesting and clear way. It is very important, for example, that a lecturer knows how to speak in front of an audience.
Unlike the researcher, the challenge facing the lecturer is the presentation of knowledge. Indeed, many great lecturers, such as Al Gore or Bill Clinton, are not researchers. Not long ago I heard an excellent lecture at the Technion by businessman Shay Agassi about the electric car project. Mr. Agassi did not shy away from getting into technical issues and did so with great success even though he is not a researcher. He just has a command of the material and knows how to talk.
Second argument: lack of time and resources
Second, research and teaching compete for our time. Because both teaching and research require a lot of time, and inevitably investment in one will come at the expense of the other. A researcher has to spend a lot of time to keep up to date in his research field, to travel and present his work at conferences, meet with colleagues, perform experiments, analyze their results and write papers. But if he is also a lecturer, he also has to spend a lot of time preparing the lesson plan, preparing and checking exercises, assignments and tests and advising and helping students. The time he invests in research he can use to improve the study material, improve the level of the exercises and shorten the deadline for returning the papers. In addition, senior researchers spend a great deal of time looking for funding sources. The long time spent on raising money certainly does not contribute anything to the level of teaching.
Third argument: the empirical findings
Finally, studies have shown that there is no connection at all between the level of research and the level of teaching. A series of studies carried out in England and Australia between 1986 and 2001 examined whether there is a relationship between the level of research as measured by the amount of publications and the level of teaching as measured by student feedback. The study examined nearly 200 lecturers in 20 different research fields (exact sciences, humanities and social sciences). The results of the study showed that statistically there is no connection between the level of teaching and the level of research. This result was stable regardless of the field of study. According to this research, many excellent lecturers either do not publish or hardly ever publish. It is almost certain that the level of these lecturers will not suffer if they stop engaging in the little research they are currently doing.
conclusions
In conclusion, we described three reasons explaining why a good lecturer does not have to be a researcher. The first reason is that research and teaching are different professions that require different abilities. It is possible for a person to be a good lecturer without having the patience to be a good researcher. The second reason is that teaching and research compete with each other for the time allocated to the lecturer. If he spends time on research, he will have less time left to fulfill his duties as a lecturer. Finally, studies have shown that in practice there is no connection between the level of teaching and the level of research. That is, there are good lecturers whose researches are not published. For these reasons it is clear that a good lecturer does not have to be a researcher.
Do you have anything to say about it? Join the debate club
Want to learn to prepare and present speeches? Sign up for a public speaking course